House of Commons

Monday 19 December 1994

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[ Madam Speaker-- in the Chair ]

Oral Answers to Questions

TRANSPORT

Airedale Route

1. Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what
action he intends to take to bring about the speedy completion of the
Airedale route through Bingley and Saltaire.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): Excellent
progress has been made on the preparation of the A650 Bingley relief road
scheme.

The proposed A650 Saltair relief road is at a very early stage of
development. The Highways Agency is currently pressing ahead with surveys
which will facilitate the development of detailed proposals.

Mr. Sutcliffe: This road is vital to the people of Bradford and
Keighley and to their economic success. Will the Minister today guarantee
that the road will be completed, after £12 million has already been
spent progressing the work thus far? Everyone in the area, of whatever
party--including those who drew up the economic strategy of the district--
depends on the road. We have read in this morning's press that the
Government will need to take transport off the road and put it on to rail.
I accept that, but the road is vital to our area and we need guarantees
from the Minister today.

Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this series of
seven schemes is intended to bring a raft of environmental and economic
benefits to the communities in the area. He will be aware that two have
been completed; five are in preparation. I am pleased to note the hon.
Gentleman's support for these schemes, by contrast with the stance of the
hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who reiterated yet again today
that the Labour party would impose a moratorium on all road schemes.

Mr. Waller: Is my hon. Friend aware that people find it difficult to
understand why the Bingley bypass has only priority 2 status? Some very
expensive preliminary works, including the diversion of the Leeds and
Liverpool canal, have already been completed. I emphasise to my hon. Friend
that the completion of the Airedale route, as soon as humanly possible, is
essential to large numbers of businesses in Keighley and the Aire valley,
and hence to much employment.

Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend's point is well made. There was, however,
a thorough review of the road programme in March this year. As a result of
that review, this scheme was placed in the priority 2 category--but I note
what he

Column 1378

has said, and what my hon. Friend the
Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) has said. The latter has already impressed
on me the importance of these schemes to his constituency.

Network SouthEast

2. Mr. Merchant: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how
much has been invested in the Network SouthEast rail area over the last
three years.

Mr. Watts: To March 1994, £1.4 billion at today's prices has
been invested in the former Network SouthEast over the three years ended
March 1994.

Mr. Merchant: Is my hon. Friend aware that the 15,000 commuters in
my constituency have in the past three years seen the biggest investment in
their local lines in living memory? Is he aware that that has meant whole
new fleets of Networkers being brought in to run the services, a major
modernisation of track, improvements to signalling, and a refurbishment
programme for local stations? All this has considerably increased the
quality of local services.

Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend has almost answered his own question
extremely well. I can confirm that investment in 1992-93, which was
£558 million, was the highest since Network SouthEast was created in
1985. I am pleased to learn from my hon. Friend that his constituents are
benefiting so much from the substantial and worthwhile investment of the
past three years.

Ms Glenda Jackson: How long will such investment via subsidy
continue for lines that are having difficulty becoming economically viable,
to use the Secretary of State's words? It is Railtrack's stated policy that
it will not support every route, and that it cannot and should not take
into consideration social issues. Just who will be defining policy for the
railways in future--or is this another example of the Government not only
failing to communicate but failing to think things through?

Mr. Watts: No. The hon. Lady confuses two things. Railtrack and the
rolling stock leasing companies will make investments on business grounds.
It is the franchising director who commands a substantial budget to be
spent on ensuring that socially necessary services continue to be secured
for the benefit of the travelling public.

Mr. Haselhurst: On the day when the case for a fifth terminal at
Heathrow has been published, is it worth reminding my hon. Friend of the
need to think ahead to ensure adequate capacity on the railway line out of
Liverpool Street station to Stansted airport and stations in my
constituency, because a third track and resignalling will be needed in the
next few years?

Mr. Watts: I had the pleasure of travelling on that service when I
returned from Stansted airport recently. I note what my hon. Friend says.
He will be aware, in the context of airports generally, that the British
Airports Authority has commissioned a half a million pound study of rail
links to airports. We await that with great interest.

Mr. McLeish: Despite the Minister's complacency about investment in
the south-east, can he confirm today that this is the first year since 1940
in which British Rail, or any of the 25 train operating units, has placed
no new

Column 1379

orders for rolling stock? Will he
acknowledge that privatisation is tearing the heart out of the railways? It
is affecting morale, service and routes and, of course, it will affect
investment in every part of the country. Surely we have a right to expect,
after the drubbing of Dudley, to see some humility and sanity from
Transport Ministers on the Front Bench [Interruption.] The Minister
is responding. I enjoy that. Or are they content just to sit back and wait
until they see the humiliation of the poll tax, Post Office privatisation
and VAT on fuel revisited on Ministers? Will they take action now to
protect our railways well into the next century?

Mr. Watts: Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
is complacent about investment in the railways. In the past five years,
there has been more than £6 billion-worth of investment in the railway
as a whole. The hon. Gentleman will know that the financing plans announced
at the time of my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget provide for
investment to continue at around £1 billion a year--three quarters of
a billion pounds funded from taxpayer's resources and one quarter of a
billion from the private sector. That is a very substantial and continuing
investment programme.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Bearing in mind that the right hon. Member for
Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) told my constituents at the
previous general election that the Conservative Government would not bring
Networker trains to the north Kent line, may I congratulate my hon. Friends
on the massive introduction of Networkers that has taken place over the
past two years on that line? Can we be told something of the further
extension of Networker trains to the Kent coast line?

Mr. Watts: We hear from my hon. Friends the real benefits that are
coming from the substantial investment that has been undertaken and which
will continue, in contrast to the empty rhetoric and scaremongering by hon.
Members on the Opposition Front Bench.

Rural Travel

3. Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what
provision he has made to ensure that the vulnerable and elderly can still
meet essential travel needs in rural areas following petrol price
increases.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): Local
authorities already have sufficient powers to subsidise the running of
additional bus services in rural areas where they see a need. In
considering provision of those services, they are required to take into
account the transport needs of elderly and disabled people.

Sir David Steel: Is the Minister aware that, following the recent
petrol price increases, the local bus company in the Scottish borders has
announced fare increases of 8 per cent.--well above the rate for either
wage or pension increases? Does he accept that many people in areas that do
not have bus services run vehicles that cost less than the annual road fund
tax? When will he stop using petrol pricing as a mechanism to check the
interests of the environment, and introduce road pricing policies in the
cities, where the private car is a luxury not a necessity?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am happy to tell the people of Scotland that the
right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues made a significant contribution to
the increase in petrol

Column 1380

prices announced last week when they voted
as they did for VAT on fuel. Everybody understands that. It may be an
embarrassment to them now, but it was my right hon. and learned Friend the
Chancellor who drew attention to the consequences for the rural areas of
the vote that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues cast.

Mr. Robathan: Has my right hon. Friend seen a report-
[Interruption.] I am sorry, Madam Speaker, I cannot hear what is
being shrieked at me by Opposition Members.

Madam Speaker: I can hear very well. Other hon. Members are
suggesting that the hon. Gentleman removes his hands from his pockets when
he stands to ask a question.

Mr. Robathan: Thank you for your assistance, Madam Speaker. Should I
require any advice on deportment or sartorial elegance I shall come to you
because you are an example to us all, but I will not take advice from the
scruffy yobbos on the Labour Benches.

Madam Speaker: I have no pockets in which to put my hands. That is
why my deportment is so good.

Mr. Robathan: Has my right hon. Friend read the recent report from
the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, which recommends large
increases in fuel prices? Does he think that that is one means, together
with better public transport, by which to encourage a shift away from
private cars? Does he think it curious that those who bleat about energy
conservation and make political points about it do nothing about
implementing measures that will conserve energy?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the
Royal Commission's report and some of its consequences. One reason why we
want a debate on transport in general and the proposals in particular is
that the implementation of some of the proposals and recommendations would
have a significant effect on the lives of literally millions of people and
would focus in particular on those who live in rural areas. Unlike the
Liberal Democrats, we do not have a commitment to a carbon tax, which would
make their position even worse.

Public Transport (Greater Manchester)

4. Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he
will make a statement about improvements to public transport in Greater
Manchester.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): Subject to
the availability of resources, the Government are ready to fund worthwhile
improvements to all forms of transport in Greater Manchester.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister realise that the people of Greater
Manchester have suffered a decline in the frequency of their train and bus
services and a decline in safety standards at stations because of the
removal of staff, while the only minor improvement has been the restoration
of trams in the centre of the town? If people in Greater Manchester are to
enjoy good public transport, that requires substantial investment in at
least five or six more lines for the Metrolink.

Mr. Norris: I am not entirely surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman
spraying around yet more hundreds of millions of pounds in spending
commitments, as the Labour party

Column 1381

is prone to do on every occasion. He has an
extraordinarily partial view of public transport in Greater Manchester. To
describe the Metro as a minor improvement is to turn churlishness into an
art form. It is a superb piece of public transport infrastructure, which
serves its purpose extremely well. The Passenger Transport Authority has
spoken to us about further extensions and when those are ready to be
considered in detail, we stand ready to do so.

Mr. Sumberg: Would not one way of providing more money for public
transport in Greater Manchester be to abandon the disastrous proposal for
the M62 relief road? That would not only generate resources, but ensure a
feeling of great relief in my constituency and end the planning blight that
presently exists as a result of the proposals.

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend makes his point in his own way.

Mr. Meacher: As the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road
Assessment report published today makes it clear that the economics of many
road building schemes are unviable--that includes not only the M25, but the
M62 road widening--will the Minister answer the question that he has just
dodged and tell us whether he will now call a halt to any further work on
the M62 road widening?

As the logic of the SACTRA report is that any cut in road building will
only increase congestion unless investment is shifted into alternative
public transport systems, will the hon. Gentleman now concentrate instead
on extending the excellent Metrolink in Manchester and on financing the
trans-Pennine rail link, which would be far cheaper than the road works on
the M62, would be far more popular and would do far more to relieve
congestion?

Mr. Norris: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, as I told his hon.
Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), the Manchester
authorities have--unfortunately, at a late stage--brought forward plans for
the second extension to the Metro system. We have said that we will be
perfectly happy to examine those in detail, although no allocation has been
made in respect of 1995-96 because it is not anticipated that work would
start by that time, so to that extent the application is somewhat
premature.

On the hon. Gentleman's more general point, my right hon. Friend has made
it perfectly clear that the advice contained in the SACTRA report is
valuable and entirely consistent with a number of the principles that the
Department has been utilising for many years. If I may say so, the real
difficulty that has emerged from the matter is the extraordinary commitment
of the hon. Gentleman, and indeed his hon. Friend the Member for Denton and
Reddish, to a complete moratorium on road building. That has already got
the hon. Gentleman into trouble with his hon. Friend the Member for
Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), who has just told the House how much he
wants a road scheme. If the hon. Gentleman looks around him, he will find
that every one of his hon. Friends favours abandoning the road programme in
general--but not when it relates to their own constituencies.

Column 1382

Fenchurch Street Line

5. Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport
when he expects that the Fenchurch Street line will be privatised; and
which authority will have responsibility for reviewing fare levels.

Mr. Watts: In 1995. The franchising director may include provisions
in franchise agreements to ensure the reasonableness of fares.

Sir Teddy Taylor: For many years, commuters from Southend-on-Sea
have enjoyed a rather inadequate and erratic service; the line has become
known as the misery line. Will the Minister do all in his power to ensure
that privatisation brings real benefits to the commuters of Southend? In
particular, will the Government ensure that the financial arrangements are
published shortly, so that we can attract a wide range of bidders?

Mr. Watts: The franchising director will publish further details of
the first eight franchises early in the new year. My hon. Friend will know
that £83 million has been spent on major signalling works on the line;
I hope that, after years of misery, his constituents will now start to
notice some improvement in the standard of service.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Secretary of State make it a condition of
the franchises that no intermediate stations are closed, that the same
volume of trains travel along the lines each week and that the length of
trains is not shortened? Will the Minister give an undertaking that that
will be a condition of the franchise for the Fenchurch Street line?

Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman will be interested to note that, for
the first time ever, the franchises let by the franchising director will
include provisions concerning passenger comfort. As has been made clear
many times in the House and elsewhere, the franchises will be based broadly
on existing timetables. That cannot mean, however, that they will replicate
those timetables in every detail, because that would not provide scope for
the private-sector franchise operator to improve the service that is
offered.

Mr. Channon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the privatisation of the
line will give travellers the opportunity to benefit from a more punctual
service, with reasonable rolling stock and reasonable fares? Is that not a
great step forward?

Mr. Watts: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.

M11 Link Road

6. Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will
make a statement about the treatment by the Highways Agency and its agents
of residents and other individuals along the route of the M11 link road.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am confident that the Highways Agency has treated
residents with every consideration and everyone in accordance with the law.

Mr. Cohen: Has not the cost of policing and security on the Mll link
road now reached £6 million, and is not the amount rising at a rate of
more than £500,000 a month? During a recent week-long operation in
Claremont road, which cost more than £2 million, were not many of my
constituents bullied--including vulnerable people, and

Column 1383

others whose only crime was living on the
line of route? Should not the Minister give an early Christmas present to
the long-suffering residents of Leyton, and many others in this country, by
promising that there will never again be another rotten road scheme like
this in Britain?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not stand
up and say thank you to the police, who carried out an operation--on behalf
of the people whom he represents--against those who decided unilaterally to
break the law. May I remind him that three public inquiries about the route
have taken place, and that what the Highways Agency did was entirely in
line with statutory provisions that had been democratically confirmed three
times? Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that £4 million of Highways
Agency money--Department of Transport money--that could have been better
used to provide safety schemes and bypasses has been used up in this
operation, along with £2 million of police money, including hundreds
of man hours, which could have been better used to provide security on the
streets in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. And he has not even had the
decency to say thank you to the police.

Mr. Cash: Although my right hon. Friend makes a good point about the
M11, does he accept that the Highways Agency should deal with a national
problem: the gridlock that is emerging in regions such as that covered by
the M6 near my constituency of Stafford and that is causing massive
congestion, not only in Stafford but on the M6? Does he agree that we
should have electronically operated signs on approaches to motorways such
as the M11 and M6 to ensure that people do not go on to motorways in the
first place and proper diversionary roads in constituencies that are
affected by people who wish to get off the motorway, as Michael Carey of
Stafford borough council recommended recently?

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has abused the question on
the Order Paper. I allowed him to proceed because he mentioned the Highways
Agency and he kept mentioning the M11. But it was a total abuse of today's
Question Time. If the Secretary of State could answer the question in half
the time that the hon. Gentleman took to ask it, I should be extremely
grateful.

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is right to point out the need to
provide drivers with more information than is available when they are in
their cars and on motorways. I hope that he will be encouraged to know that
I have increased the budget for that next year by about 20 per cent.

Ms Walley: Considering all the figures again--all the millions of
pounds that have been spent on security--is not the real issue that the
money for the roads programme is being spent on the basis of a formula that
is rigged towards roads and that is not part of an integrated transport
policy? Will the Secretary of State justify this road and all the other
roads in the programme on the basis of the Standing Advisory Committee on
Trunk Road Assessment report published today? Why does he not come to the
House and allow us debate its contents with him?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Lady will have to decide on which side of
the road she wishes to walk. Last week, she condemned us because we did not
spend £1.5 billion

Column 1384

more on local road schemes. Today, she
wants a moratorium on all road building. She has to make up her mind on
which side of the street she wants to walk.

Cowden Inquiry

7. Mr. Wolfson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he
expects to make public the findings of the inquiry which has recently
opened into the Cowden train crash.

Dr. Mawhinney: The Health and Safety Executive expects to publish
the inspector's report in the spring.

Mr. Wolfson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the frequency of
service on the Cowden line is only just over one half of what it was before
the accident and that that is due to drivers' lack of confidence in the
system? The provision of cab secure radios could go a long way to restoring
that confidence. Will provision for them be made?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that both British
Rail and Railtrack committed themselves at the public inquiry to putting
cab secure radios on the Uckfield line. I shall encourage them to do so as
soon as possible.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister give hon. Members an undertaking
that if the report makes it clear that, because of the cost of
privatisation, safety measures are not being put in place either in the
Cowden region or elsewhere, he will make money available to ensure that all
safety measures are implemented as soon as possible? Some of evidence at
the inquiry shows that British Rail is resiling from original decisions
that it took some time ago.

Dr. Mawhinney: Clearly, as a member of the Select Committee on
Transport, the hon. Lady will understand that I shall not comment on
evidence that has been presented to the Committee, not least because the
report will come to me in due course. I am happy to assure her, however,
that my commitment to safety being paramount is unchanged.

London River Crossings

8. Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what
plans he has for an additional river crossing between Dartford and
Blackwall; and if he will make a statement.

9. Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport when he will decide on the new route for the east London river
crossing.

Mr. Norris: Several proposals have been made, including alternatives
to the previously planned east London river crossing. I am still
considering how those proposals should be taken forward.

Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of
the considerable congestion at the Blackwall tunnel every day and of the
fact that my constituents are getting rather cross because their journey to
work is bad? Furthermore, does he agree that the development and
regeneration of the riverside, including

Column 1385

the Thamesmead, Erith and Belvedere areas
of my constituency, desperately require another crossing point to make it
feasible for industry to relocate there?

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend makes two very important points. First,
he draws attention to the Blackwall tunnel, about which I can sympathise
with him. He will be aware of our efforts, which mean that vehicles do not
now collide with traffic from the north-bound tunnel. Nevertheless, we
still have a problem trying to avoid the stoppages that occur too
frequently. I can promise my hon. Friend that I am considering the problem
urgently to see what more we can do. Secondly, I endorse the general
principle that he outlined which is that, essentially, the river crossings
are about the economic regeneration of areas north and south of the river,
areas that are represented by him and by other hon. Members. I am sure that
he will agree that the appropriate outcome of our consultation on the
various options will be a solution that local authorities themselves accept
as being in their best interests in getting the right balance between any
environmental impact and the economic regeneration which we all agree is so
urgently needed.

Mr. Townsend: Number 9, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: It has been called. The supplementary question is now
required.

Mr. Townsend: When deciding the future of the east London river
crossing, will my hon. Friend persuade the Secretary of State to pay far
more attention to the crucial environmental aspects of the route and, in
particular, will he ensure that Oxleas wood is not damaged in any way? May
I invite my hon. Friend and his dog to walk the route with me on new year's
day?

Mr. Norris: His hon. Friend does not have a dog but I am sure that I
could hire one for the day. Were I not otherwise committed, my hon.
Friend's offer would not be unattractive. I have, in fact, walked that
route a number of times. My hon. Friend will know that some time ago--
nearly two years ago, I think--I made it clear that we would not be
proceeding with the Oxleas wood scheme, for precisely the reasons that he
has outlined. I did not think that it was an appropriate way to proceed
but, as he knows, what remains at issue is the strategic objective that the
east London river crossing was planned to deliver--that is, a link between
the A13 and the A2, which remains of considerable importance for the
economic regeneration of the region, as I said earlier.

Mr. Spearing: Is the Minister aware that I have opposed the east
London river crossing unless an extension of the docklands light railway
were to run across it? As for the objective that he has just outlined--
joining two trunk roads--would it not be good value for money, in the light
of today's report, to extend the DLR by a single line tunnel under the
Thames to relieve the congestion at Blackwall and on the other road
crossings, which are a second priority for east London at the moment?

Mr. Norris: Without speculating on how the crossing might be
achieved, I acknowledge the appropriateness of the hon. Gentleman's
observation. Clearly, if the DLR were to be extended on whatever crossing
were provided for the road, the value, certainly in terms of value for

Column 1386

money, would be in attaching the rail
crossing to the road crossing. If the consequence of that were, for
example, the ability to revitalise Thamesmead, which I know is of concern
to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), to the
hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) and to others, that would
clearly commend it as an option. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware
that local authorities in the area, especially Bexley, Greenwich and
others, have been concerned about the impact of locally generated traffic
on such a crossing, and it will be necessary to take their concern into
account. That is what the consultation process is for.

Mr. Austin-Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath
(Mr. Townsend) for inviting the Minister to my constituency. Does the
Minister agree that today's report by the Standing Advisory Committee on
Trunk Road Assessment casts severe doubt on the supposed economic
advantages of the east London river crossing? What about the environmental
damage that would be caused in an area where pollution already exceeds
European guideline levels? Does the Minister not think that now is the time
to put some resources into the railway crossing at Woolwich and into the
provision of a Woolwich metro, which would do so much to regenerate the
Thames gateway north and south of the river?

Mr. Norris: On the first point, I do not believe that the SACTRA
report has a significant implication for the scheme about which the hon.
Gentleman is talking. On the second point about the environmental
consequences of the scheme, which is a slightly different issue, I remind
him of what I said earlier. No one doubts that infrastructure of any sort
will have some environmental implications. The decision for him, for his
constituents, for his local authority and the local authorities on the
other side of the river, given that there is widespread agreement that we
need more crossings of the river to facilitate economic regeneration, is
how to balance the environmental consequences of the scheme and the
economic consequences, and the job mobility that goes with that, of not
providing the scheme.

The Woolwich metro is a good scheme. It is one of the options at which my
right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will look in the context of
London river crossings. At this stage, it remains a good scheme, on which
we are working.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to meet a
cross-party deputation to discuss the Woolwich rail link, which would make
a great deal of difference to all. Does he accept that about four fifths of
extra traffic growth comes from increased economic prosperity and not from
building new roads? If we want east London, north and south of the river,
to share in that prosperity, we must have the crossings that we are
contemplating. Will my hon. Friend try to ensure that whatever comes across
the Thames does not turn south-west towards Brighton, but goes towards
Dover, as that would meet the crossing's published purpose?

Mr. Norris: I will, of course, meet a delegation if my hon. Friend
cares to bring one. If it is an all-party delegation, it will be so much
the better for that. I note his other observations, and I believe that
there is a great deal in what he says.

Column 1387

Public Transport (London)

10. Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he
will make a statement on public transport fare prices in London.

Mr. Norris: Public transport fares in London strike a reasonable
balance between the farepayer and the taxpayer in meeting the costs of
improving and maintaining the system. It is right that those who use the
services and benefit directly from them pay their share of the system's
costs.

Mrs. Roche: What does the Minister have to say to all the Londoners
who, because of cuts in the Budget will, in January, face fare increases
of, on average, three times the rate of inflation? Is it not about time
that the people who use the transport system in London get some benefit
from it and do not get clobbered, yet again, by this Government?

Mr. Norris: That is the most extraordinary economic analysis I have
ever heard. I am delighted to be able to confirm that, such is the low
level of inflation, as a result of the policies of my right hon. and
learned Friend the Chancellor, any increase in real terms looks like a
sizeable multiple of the rate of inflation. I am delighted to put it on
record that in reality--I note the hon. Lady's amnesia on this point--this
is the lowest increase in cash terms in eight years. People in London
understand clearly how important it is to have a reliable service, and they
know that that relies on investment. Given the record levels of investment
already coming from the taxpayer, it is not unreasonable that farepayers
should make their contribution.

Mr. Ottaway: Inasmuch as fares affect my hon. Friend's budget, may I
congratulate him on finding room in his budget for funding the Croydon
light railway--the tram link in Croydon? It will do much to enhance
Croydon's prosperity and to regenerate the area.

Mr. Norris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. My
right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was delighted to be able to say
that funds had been reserved in our budget this year for that scheme to go
ahead, subject to satisfactory bids being received from the private sector.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Would London farepayers not be happier about
paying their fares if the Government had kept their promises on investment,
which last year was £130 million short of what was promised in 1991
and which next year will be one third down on what London Underground has
asked for? The money saved on the road-building programme in the budget has
not been transferred to public transport, which is what the public have
asked for and what today's report has confirmed as useful and necessary.

Mr. Norris: I am entirely satisfied that the public transport
services in London have received record levels of investment over the past
four years under this Government, in stark contrast to the pitiful levels
of investment available during the 1970s under the Labour Government. It is
really quite staggering to see that, in today's money, the Labour party was
investing under £100 million a year in London Transport services, in

Column 1388

contrast to nearly half a billion pounds on
LT alone and another half a billion pounds on Network SouthEast today.

Mr. Meacher: When will the Minister stop being so self-satisfied and
wake up to the fact that London is now the most expensive capital in the
European Union for commuters--more expensive even than Paris, Brussels or
Rome--and that London fares are now almost twice the European average? What
sense does it make to push up London's rail, bus and tube fares next month
for the second year running by more than double the rate of inflation,
since all that will do is force more commuters into cars and increase the
levels of pollution and congestion? When will he call a halt to what is
really at the root of this action--the Government's plans to remove all
operating subsidy from rail services to the south-east, which an
independent report recently predicted will increase fares by a further
massive 65 per cent. over the next decade?

Mr. Norris: The one thing on which I will take no lessons from the
hon. Gentleman is smugness and self-satisfaction. If there is one person
who epitomises that on the Opposition Benches, it is the hon. Gentleman. As
for his ludicrous scaremongering about fares and public transport services
in the south-east, he really should know better. But then, we have come to
expect no better from the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps the only important
statistic he appears to have overlooked is that when the Transport Research
Laboratory looked exactly at what would happen if, for example, fares were
reduced, it concluded: "cutting fares by 50 per cent. reduces traffic and
emissions by only 1 per cent. to 2 per cent."

That is the reality and it is a reality which, of course, the hon.
Gentleman and his colleagues conveniently ignore, as they do on so many
subjects where the facts contradict their own ludicrous assertions.